Socialism vs Capitalism

submitted by [deleted] from (jssocial.pw)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Good observation. And their food isn't even tasty. China has managed to combine socialism with monopolistic corporations.

[–]EvilNick 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Well technically the government is the monopoly in China.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

How confusing. Capitalism is when the state promises to not infringe the negative rights of the citizens. Socialism, is when the state promises the citizens new cooler positive rights, and pays for them by taking away the negative rights. Corporations in China exist and can act, but their property and freedom can be taken away whenever the state wants. This seems like feudalism, with self-selected aristocrats.

Monopoly, is when there is only one actor, and only this actor can act. China allows some companies to form and act, it doesn't make itself the monopoly in every sphere. It only gathers tribute and sends directions. Usually.

[–]EvilNick 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Socialism, is when the state promises the citizens new cooler positive rights

lol I think you might be confused. free stuff is not "a right", mind you a cooler positive right.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Negative rights, are the rights granted to us by nature. Other people must work hard to take them away from us.

Positive rights, are the rights granted to us by other people. People have to work to produce them, voluntarily or not.

A right to free stuff seems like a positive right to me.

[–]EvilNick 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

nature grants no right. Nature has no sentience. Thats not what negative rights mean.

A right to free stuff is not positive because you have to inconvenience another group to make your "free stuff". You are then taking rights from some group to make youre rights better. Who would you like to see subjugated to make your free stuff?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

nature grants no right. Nature has no sentience.

Why would its sentience even matter? Are you going to reject all the food and materials nature has developed just because it, supposedly, lacks sentience? Its lack of sentience only means that it won't negotiate with you. Nature simply sets the rules. Those who follow, live. Those who refuse, die. This way, Nature creates all things.

Thats not what negative rights mean.

Wikipedia and Google seem to agree with me. If you have another definition, bring it.

A right to free stuff is not positive because you have to inconvenience another group to make your "free stuff".

All positive rights work this way. This is why socialist policies always produce tyranny.

Who would you like to see subjugated to make your free stuff?

Asians.

[–]EvilNick 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

nature does not develop things for us, it gives us no rights. We just take what we need and for that matter we have been agrarian for centuries so we are actually supplying ourselves with these food and materials. Let alone everything synthetic we make. Nature sets no "rules" lol. Thats a childish outlook.

Positive rights dont "inconvenience" someone else by default. Negative rights just mean your action or need doesnt "need" someone else. Go re read that wiki. The right to live in peace means you need to have another not bother you. Its more than likely not inconveniencing them to do it. You have a negative right to live. Granted someone else doesnt kill you. Technically there are no negative rights when living in a society. You can only have a negative right if you lived all alone on and island forever since any right you may see as negative inherently is still granted by a ruling. If you believe this political theory than you have fun with it but its incorrect.

we agree on socialist policies apparently.

You understand asians are a very large group of very different people right? Im assuming the last part was sarcasm.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

We just take what we need

Who decides what we need? Who decides whether we can take it successfully? There are laws. The natural laws. They are the reason things evolve and develop to be the way they are.

Positive rights dont "inconvenience" someone else by default.

But this is exactly what they do. To have something done for you, someone must be forced to do it.

Technically there are no negative rights when living in a society.

No. If the society wants to take away my negative rights, it has to kill or scare me. It has to do the work. My negative rights don't automatically disappear by living there, someone must spend efforts to take them.

[–]EvilNick 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

lol, no the laws are not natural they are set by a society or governing power. laws of nature are not laws at all. you are making the statement that nature can be bargained with. Thats childish.

someone doesnt have to be forced at all. if its all agreed on then everyone gets what they want. so it doesnt always inconvenience someone. you may not get everything youre asking for and have to compromise. You may be the one being inconvenienced.

doesnt have to kill or scare. again you can bargain. if you want to live in the society you will follow its rules or again go live on your own in the woods and do whatever you want.

youre rights are dictated by a governing body of some sort, rights are not an inherit thing we are born with at all, thats a fallacy, its a belief. Nothing more. you usually earn rights. rights also change. there is no such thing as negative rights unless there is no one out there to impose what they feel your rights should be. even then your "rights" to live could be taken by a bear or some other bigger animal quite easily.